Countries don't get much more ripe than Afghanistan ...
Poor. No Conventional Military. No infrastructure. Bush's Greneda.
Dont get me wrong. Afghanistan was necessary. And relatively easy. And Bush is still screwing it up. We're really nurturing democracy there. Leaving it to the warlords and poppy growers again.
Neoconservatives are all about theory... but no substance.
Scott, was there an imminent threat to the United States, to justify your position? And if so, can you spell out exactly what that threat to the United States was?
I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent?.
Sigh, wrong! He did?nt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD, or if he could deploy a nuclear bomb within the near term (a year or two) ? especially if he obtained fissionable materials. But the WMD argument advanced by his administration, and his supporters, was that given Saddam?s meglomanical and psychopathic history, his obstructive and suspicious coverups, and the the fearful uncertainity, it was ?URGENT? that the issue be delt with, preferably through long overdue regime change.
Now one may argue that, in retrospect, it was not urgent. However, one ought to at least acknowledge that the urgency was driven by 9/11, continually deferred American plans to deal with Saddam (dating back to the expulsion of UN inspectors several YEARS previously) AND the near impossibility of maintaining indefinitely the force levels necessary to extract compliance, or to force compliance through war before summer weather.
There is no reason, other than hysteria, for left critics to continue to invent history ? Bush may, or may not, have been wrong in his reasons for pressing war, but setting up a straw position to bash leaves the impression that his critics aren?t secure enough to confront his actual policy statements.
The question to Scott ought to have been: "What was so urgent to justify your position ?" (although even that is leading).
I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent?.
Sigh, wrong! He did?nt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD, or if he could deploy a nuclear bomb within the near term (a year or two) ? especially if he obtained fissionable materials. But the WMD argument advanced by his administration, and his supporters, was that given Saddam?s meglomanical and psychopathic history, his obstructive and suspicious coverups, and the the fearful uncertainity, it was ?URGENT? that the issue be delt with, preferably through long overdue regime change.
Bush on October 7, 2002
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.
So the threat was not "imminent" but failure to act immediately conjures up the spectre of Hussein handing over his (nonexistant) bio and nuke weapons to terrorists just like the people who hit the World Trade Center "on a whim". Like, could be tommorrow.
And you seriously want to play a little semantics game where the use of the word "imminent" signals some kind leftist revisionist history.
...Perhaps you don't remember that this (and other) war(s) in the current series were mooted back in the 1990s by the PNAC group (Feith , Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol etc etc etc). In their mission statement, they said that these plans would be very slow to implement, unless there was some catastrophic event... a "New Pearl Harbor". (On the evening of 9-11, Bush wrote in his journal: "the new Pearl Harbor happened today)...the war was to go ahead regardless...hence all the absurd reasons for the war stated by the administration, which they danced around like some grotesque game of musical chairs (WMD, oil, links with al Qaeda, regime change, liberation of the Iraqi people, and so on). Wolfowitz himself stated that it was extremely hard to find consensus on any of these reasons and they eventually came to a compromise and settled on WMD because that was the easiest sell to the American people, who were still reeling from the shock of 9-11...they are spinning that "liberation of Iraq" nonsense...ie how very convenient, makes Bush look "charitable"... but that was never the reason for the war, and never could have been. Would the American people cough up $200 billion+ to bring freedom to the people of one middle eastern country? What a joke.
Your fevered speculations provides us with a sinister and breathless storyline: ?they (the PNAC group) said that these plans would be very slow to implement, unless there was some catastrophic event?a ?New Pearl Harbor? (On the evening of 9-11, Bush wrote in his journal: ?the new Pearl Harbor happended today?)? and ?Iraq never needed to be a threat: the war was to go ahead regardless?hence all the absurd reasons for the war?they danced the grotesque game?etc. etc.?
I think one ought to unravel your theatrical thread and provide a more dispassionate and balanced story.
The ?plans? of PNAC (a private, non-profit group started in 1997) was vetted in their policy document ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses? (2000). It laid out the key goals of its authors: to transform American military by making its combat forces lighter, more mobile, and technologically advanced; to redeploy and/or reorient forces from a potential ?European? conflict against the Soviet Union to other potential areas of trouble, particularly the far east; to halt the development of expensive force systems (e.g. the crusader artillery system) so as to fund the transformation; to better prepare the American military for growing constabulary missions (e.g. Kosovo); to maintain American military preeminence; and to defend and expand zones of democracy.
Of course, the authors recognized, as do most bold and imaginative government planners, that military culture and congressional politics are so powerful as to derail any radical break with previous doctrine and existing pork barrels ? and in fact, Rumsfeld?s attempts prior to 9-11 for force restructuring met with fierce, and successful resistence. But 9-11, a Pearl Harbor in most people?s view, recast a reticent (and almost isolationist) President and empowered his embattled Secretary, and propelled the neo-cons into the main currents of military/political debate.
Quote:
Wolfowitz himself stated that it was extremely hard to find consensus on any of these reasons and they eventually came to a compromise and settled on WMD because that was the easiest sell to the American people, who were still reeling from the shock of 9-11. Now even the admin. has acknowledged that the WMD intel was fatally flawed, so they are spinning that "liberation of Iraq" nonsense...ie how very convenient
.
It wasn't so cynical. State and Defense participants had different degrees of consensus as too the need for a war to resolve their different concerns (WMD, liberation, terrorism) ? the one aspect all agreed on was the over-riding fear of Saddam?s WMD intentions and his program. While Powell and the State Department may have not justified the war in other terms initially, others in the administration (including Bush) made it very clear that there were other compelling reasons for the war: Saddam?s brutality and genocide, his support of terrorism, Saddam?s aspirations for an imperial empire, and the importance of oil. I would recommend you get a copy of ?The War for Iraq: Saddam?s Tyranny and America?s Mission? published before the war is an excellent summery of Bushs thinking and his administration?s rationale for the pending war.
Quote:
Without 9-11, the Iraq war would have been a complete nonstarter. The American people would never have stood for it....and neither would the British, Spanish, or Italian governments...or any other of the "coalition of the willing" (paid off or threatened).
There we agree. 9-11 transformed the President and the public. It established a new doctrine of pre-emption, and it gave impulse to the neo-conservative (and neo-liberal) view of pro-active democratization.
Quote:
The war happened, and as a result US interests could well be under a greater "imminent threat (from terrorists) than before the war.
Perhaps, or perhaps it merely expressed an inevitable (and pre-existing) clash of civilizations. It may well be that counter-attacking Muslims and dictators will create more terrorists and dictators, but the history of appeasement is that sooner, or later, one will not have a choice ? and the choice is best made earlier than later.
Step 2: Back off of that and say that SH is cozy with "al Qaeda-like" terrorist organizations
Step 2.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 3: Start rattling sabres about SH and WMD
Step 3.5: Raise the terrah alert again
Step 3.75: Raise it again
Step 4: Hammer home that SH is a madman bent on acquiring WMD; imply that he has them or may be on the verge of having them. Or might be thinking about trying to have them. Or knows a guy who knows a guy who saw some once.
Step 4.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 4.75: Raise it, then lower it again.
Step 5: Remind everyone that the enemy hates America just because. Especially the liberals.
Step 6: Every time you mention the War on Terrah/Afghanistan/9.11, mention SH and his WMD in conjunction.
Step 7: Eventually stop talking about the War on Terrah/Afghanistan altogether; focus entirely on SH, his terrorist ties, and his WMD
In other words, sow confusion about the relationship between SH and 9/11 and terrorism, then convince people that SH had WMD. The people can draw the conclusion for themselves that CLEARLY SH and his WMD, like all terrorist attacks (see how we were constantly warned about possible attacks? At any moment? Be on alert!), is an *immanent threat*.
And therefore Iraq = Immanent threat.
You get the war you want without having to lie! It's all about what the meaning of "is" is....
Wow. You do a good job (max) of regurgitating the Bush Neoconservative doctrine.
Saddam was not a threat. A bad man yes. They were saying he was a threat... if not imminent... incredibly dangerous. OOOO we don't know when he'll strike us with his big bad WMDs.
There are more terrorists in Iraq now than were there before the war.
The administration had so many excuses to go into Iraq.
WMD (we know where they are... roughly... we need more time, time we wouldn't give the UN inspectors)
Links to Al Qaeda (proven unlikely if not false Atta never met with an Iraqi spy)
Links to Ansar al Islam (actually they were in the Kurd controlled north near the Iranian border)
Seeking out nuclear capabilities (we're not sure how close they are to having weapons grade materials... now we know.)
They were coming up with every reason they could. Yes 9/11 happened... but it had nothing to do with Iraq... which was well contained. They had a THEORY, and they wanted to see it through... despite the lack of evidence, world support or any experience at nation building.
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.
So the threat was not "imminent" but failure to act immediately conjures up the spectre of Hussein handing over his (nonexistant) bio and nuke weapons to terrorists just like the people who hit the World Trade Center "on a whim". Like, could be tommorrow.
And you seriously want to play a little semantics game where the use of the word "imminent" signals some kind leftist revisionist history.
I've said it before, you people have no shame.
It is certainly no game, semantic or otherwise. Either Bush said the phrase attributed to him, or he did not. Either Bush, as concurrently claimed by the left, intentionally ?lied? about the immeniance of the threat, or he did not.
Unfortuntily, gaggles of liberal and leftist researchers have poured through the administration documents and media archieves to examine every utterence of George Bush hoping to find the ?smoking gun? ? to little avail.
What he did say was something quite different. At the United Nations he described the threat, not as imminent, but as ?grave and gathering? - an obvious reference to Winston Churchills warning several years prior to WWII of Nazi Germany?s rearming.
Bush 's followup State of the Union address made it very plain: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
Bush stated clearly that he did not wish to wait for Saddam to ?rearm?, or wait until the threat becomes "imminent" --- just how much plainer could he be ?
And, one should note, that it was certainly plain enough for numerous Democrats at the time, including Senators Kennedy and John Kerry. They were opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force precisely because it wasn't hinged to an imminent threat from Iraq (Kerry ultimately flip-flopped). Senator Robert Byrd even offered an amendment requiring that imminence become the standard for war. After a debate, he lost.
The trigger happy left has, of course, hoped to create a new mythology of imagined transgressions based on their own lexicon of coded meanings ? providing reassuring ?amens? to a frustrated liberal choir with revised history.
No, this issue is not one of semantic games; it is one of intellectual integrity and honesty. So in the search for shame, I suggest one starts at home.
No, this issue is not one of semantic games; it is one of intellectual integrity and honesty.
Of which Bush showed none. You're delusional if you believe Bush didn't try to lead Congress and the public to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat.
The ?plans? of PNAC (a private, non-profit group started in 1997) was vetted in their policy document ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses? (2000). It laid out the key goals of its authors: to transform American military by making its combat forces lighter, more mobile, and technologically advanced; to redeploy and/or reorient forces from a potential ?European? conflict against the Soviet Union to other potential areas of trouble, particularly the far east; to halt the development of expensive force systems (e.g. the crusader artillery system) so as to fund the transformation; to better prepare the American military for growing constabulary missions (e.g. Kosovo); to maintain American military preeminence; and to defend and expand zones of democracy.
Um, and the "plan" to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Specifically. As articulated in a letter to Clinton in 1998.
Quote:
There we agree. 9-11 transformed the President and the public. It established a new doctrine of pre-emption, and it gave impulse to the neo-conservative (and neo-liberal) view of pro-active democratization
9/11 did not estabilish any doctrine. That was left to the oportunists in the white house.
Quote:
Perhaps, or perhaps it merely expressed an inevitable (and pre-existing) clash of civilizations. It may well be that counter-attacking Muslims and dictators will create more terrorists and dictators, but the history of appeasement is that sooner, or later, one will not have a choice ? and the choice is best made earlier than later.
Counter-attacking Muslims? History of appeasment? Those phrases would only make sense if we were at war with a standing army of "Muslims" with a unique state.. Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.
The language of WWII is not only misleading in this context, it is tragically wrong-headed. This notion that these are the opening battles in a vast war between the (secular, liberal) west and the (backward, fanatical) east it just another chapter in "America needs a giant, fiendishly organized, implacibly evil enemy with No Regard For Human Life to keep the money flowing to the military and its contractors", the bed time story that has kept us awake nights now for over 50 years.
Step 2: Back off of that and say that SH is cozy with "al Qaeda-like" terrorist organizations
Step 2.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 3: Start rattling sabres about SH and WMD
Step 3.5: Raise the terrah alert again
Step 3.75: Raise it again
Step 4: Hammer home that SH is a madman bent on acquiring WMD; imply that he has them or may be on the verge of having them. Or might be thinking about trying to have them. Or knows a guy who knows a guy who saw some once.
Step 4.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 4.75: Raise it, then lower it again.
Step 5: Remind everyone that the enemy hates America just because. Especially the liberals.
Step 6: Every time you mention the War on Terrah/Afghanistan/9.11, mention SH and his WMD in conjunction.
Step 7: Eventually stop talking about the War on Terrah/Afghanistan altogether; focus entirely on SH, his terrorist ties, and his WMD
In other words, sow confusion about the relationship between SH and 9/11 and terrorism, then convince people that SH had WMD. The people can draw the conclusion for themselves that CLEARLY SH and his WMD, like all terrorist attacks (see how we were constantly warned about possible attacks? At any moment? Be on alert!), is an *immanent threat*.
And therefore Iraq = Immanent threat.
You get the war you want without having to lie! It's all about what the meaning of "is" is....
Cheers
Scott
The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. While the links between Al Queda and Iraq have been murky, it is untrue and misleading that there was a lack of evidence of such links. Iraq was strongly involved in the 1993 WTC bombing and subsequently protected several of the principals involved - at least one of which has close relatives in Al Queda leadership. Iraq?s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge. Before that, when Osama lived in Sudan, Iraq funneled funds to the radical Islamic regime in the Sudan and to their supporter Osama Bin Laden. It is believed that, in 1994, Iraq directly supplied Osama with funds to support the Islamic radicals in Algeria that were seeking to overthrow the government. More recently, after the World Trade Center destruction, an Al Queda senior terrorist, was hospitalized in Baghdad and treated for his wounds (and released)and then resided in Iraq. It is known that Al Queda and Iraq have participated in conference(s) of terror groups in Lebanon.
In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism. Iraq was one of the principals of the 93 WTC bombing. Iraq dispatched two agents to kill President Bush in Kuwait in the early 90s. Iraq has provided haven and home for five or six other terrorist groups including: the Abu Nidal organization, the MEK (Muslim), PFLP, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and the PKK (Kurdish). At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq. In other words, the electorate understands, that the essential truth is that in this war against the U.S. and its allies, one does not need to make such granular distinctions between two declared enemies and mutual supporters of terrorism ? anymore that one would have to make such distinctions regarding Japan and Germany.
Iraq?s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge.
I don't have time for all the skewing you've done here, but all we have to do is look at this one, which is considered prime evidence that no relationship could exist between the two groups as the idea was rejected flat-out by bin laden.
Oh, MEK has not used terrorism for decades and we all know that the pentagon supported it until the state department intervened. PFLP is not a threat to the US (well, none were). So good job at basically being dishonest.
I can't believe people like you are still at this. Have you even bothered to research Wohlstetter or read The City and Man? I didn't think so. I can give you a whole reading list on intel if you would like to get a clue.
At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq.
Apparently you really haven't been keeping up:
Quote:
Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation ?was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,? and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?
Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.
Um, and the "plan" to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Specifically. As articulated in a letter to Clinton in 1998.
What of it (or the dozens of other plans concocted in the aftermath of the 91 Gulf war)?
Quote:
Counter-attacking Muslims? History of appeasment? Those phrases would only make sense if we were at war with a standing army of "Muslims" with a unique state.. Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.
The language of WWII is not only misleading in this context, it is tragically wrong-headed. This notion that these are the opening battles in a vast war between the (secular, liberal) west and the (backward, fanatical) east it just another chapter in "America needs a giant, fiendishly organized, implacibly evil enemy with No Regard For Human Life to keep the money flowing to the military and its contractors", the bed time story that has kept us awake nights now for over 50 years.
Just a ?strategy? murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?
What Bin Laden and Bush know, that you don?t, is that we are at war, not with a strategy but with a cause and a culture. No, not a war against a single state or an entire culture, but against Islamic based global terrorism and those who would support or harbor it. To all but the densest, it is obvious that virtually all global terrorists are from Muslim countries - all of them march under a banner of Islamic religion and Muslim culture ? all of them believe in the Jihad, and perfidy of the West.
What many naive liberals ignore is that ?peaceful? Islam has grown increasingly intolerant and sectarian in the last century. Unlike an earlier era, Islam is now conformist and puritanical: taking the opposite path of Christianity, which has become far more diverse. Wahabbi?s, the most virulent and powerful strain of Islam, have banned hundreds of historical works by Islamic scholars of law, theology, etc. because they are ?heretical? and Wahabbi?s have the funding (from Saudi Arabia) to suppress the dwindling numbers ?moderates? who will not bend to their doctrines. Wahabbism now makes of 80% of U.S. Muslim clerics (is it any wonder when the U.S. military recruits ?moderates? it ends up with a spy cell and free lancing traitors?)
When the Arab streets erupt in joy at the death of Americans, when Pakistani tribes hide Bin Laden and his lieutenants, when Saudi Arabia funds fanatics and shields terrorists, when fanatics (who would otherwise be killing each other) flow into Iraq because a western nation is attacking a ?brother? Muslim ? then one would be a fool to dismiss ?terrorism? as simply a strategy.
War is upon us, Bush knows it, Bin Laden knows it, and the Arab street knows it. And the game is simple: Muslim terrorists will attack the west with impunity; and if we strike back, and the Islamic world and the Arab street will erupt.
So be it. In war against of terrorism and Islamic despotic regimes there may be an unavoidable clash of two civilizations. If so, let that be the choice of the Islamic world. Until then, our policy stands: support terrorism and you support your own destruction.
Lot of unsupported pseudo facts flying around here.
You all act as if you know what the pres knows, or what intel officials know. Who knows what they know and can't tell us. I think a lot of you that are trying to impute this pres may be eating crow when it all shakes out. The PRELIMINARY Kay report looks pretty damning and Kay seems pretty confident about finding the goods.
It seems the dems are screaming about the bad intel that the pres made the decision based on. But was it not them that decided that since the cold war was over there was no more need for human intelligence. I will look it up, but I have never heard this president blame the culprits for lack of intel.
Let's just forget WMD, UN sanctions, threats to other countries in the region and stuff like that. Let's look just inside Iraq. Just since 1991 it is estimated that over 200,000 Shiites have 'disappeared' or if you choose to believe the Iraqi people, have been killed by Saddam's thugs. BLA BLA BLA, you say?
Let's break it down:
That's over 18,000 people a year. Murdered. Over 1500 people a month. Murdered. More than 50 people a day. Murdered. More than 2 people per hour, 24 hours a day. Murdered.
Did I mention they were MURDERED. These people died in mass graves often buried alive. They were gunned down falling into trenches and bull dozed over the same day.
Back to putting the atrocity into perspective:
The tragedy would take more than 65 9/11's, more than 1190 Oklahoma Bombings, and more than 18,000 California Wildfire's to parallel the deaths that took place at the hands of the administration of Iraq, namely the SH regime.
What makes it worse, if you can immagine that, is the fact that most of these murders were committed soon after the 1991 Shiite uprising.
Go ask the Kurds in the north about how they were treated. How about the Kuwaiti's? The list goes on and on. The Iraqi's will be digging up mass graves for a decade.
These crimes on large chunks of humanity should have been enough to go in. Shame on us for not acting sooner.
These were reasons the pres gave to justify removing that evil. Why are you all ignoring these facts? It is a sad state of affairs when people care more about political 'brownie points" so they can say "I was right you were wrong" than they do for other humans.
Bush 's followup State of the Union address made it very plain: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
This has been quoted twice now as evidence that he didn't say that Iraq was an "imminent threat".
Yet that is exactly what he is saying!
His first sentence clashes with the rest, he claims people want to wait until the threat is imminent, then argues against waiting until *after* an attack has occured, which implies an attack is imminent.
A classic "junior" tactic of combining sophistry with stupidity.
Just a ?strategy? murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?
Are you trying to get your own talk-show?
Lets see, addabox says:
Quote:
Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.
you say:
Quote:
Just a ?strategy? murdered 3000 people on September 11th?
So you think that a state or a religion murdered 3000 people? And that "strategy" plays no part in the deaths (or murders) of people in wars (or terrorist attacks)?
Are *you* serious?
It's no wonder you have trouble understanding the problems in the semantic wrangling discussed in this thread if this truly reflects your ability to use and understand language (or you could just be a blinkered partisan).
Lot of unsupported pseudo facts flying around here.
Such as?
Quote:
You all act as if you know what the pres knows, or what intel officials know.
That's because we do. It looks like you have some studying to do before you make a whole bunch of assumptions about how the world works. I can give you a reading list about intelligence if you would like to learn about it.
Quote:
The PRELIMINARY Kay report looks pretty damning and Kay seems pretty confident about finding the goods.
Hey, look what this silly man said, everybody. He's goofy.
Quote:
What makes it worse, if you can immagine that, is the fact that most of these murders were committed soon after the 1991 Shiite uprising.
Where do you people come from? What ever happened to learning about things before making such strong opinions?
[B]What of it (or the dozens of other plans concocted in the aftermath of the 91 Gulf war)?
Just a ?strategy? murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?
Brzezinski put it well at the NASSP Conference:
"I think that calls for serious debate in America about the role of America in the world, and I do not believe that that serious debate is satisfied simply by a very abstract, vague and quasi-theological definition of the war on terrorism as the central preoccupation of the United States in today's world. That definition of the challenge in my view simply narrows down and over-simplifies a complex and varied set of challenges that needs to be addressed on a broad front.
It deals with abstractions. It theologizes the challenge. It doesn't point directly at the problem. It talks about a broad phenomenon, terrorism, as the enemy overlooking the fact that terrorism is a technique for killing people. That doesn't tell us who the enemy is. It's as if we said that World War II was not against the Nazis but against blitzkrieg. We need to ask who is the enemy, and the enemies are terrorists.
But not in an abstract, theologically-defined fashion, people, to quote again our highest spokesmen, "people who hate things, whereas we love things" ? literally. Not to mention the fact that of course terrorists hate freedom. I think they do hate. But believe me, I don't think they sit there abstractly hating freedom. They hate some of us. They hate some countries. They hate some particular targets. But it's a lot more concrete than these vague quasi-theological formulations."
It's crystal clear that you haven't studied this. You talk in abstractions and make false claims (such as the one about Salman Pak). So really, you aren't in any sort of position to point fingers.
Quote:
then one would be a fool to dismiss ?terrorism? as simply a strategy.
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Comments
Countries don't get much more ripe than Afghanistan ...
Poor. No Conventional Military. No infrastructure. Bush's Greneda.
Dont get me wrong. Afghanistan was necessary. And relatively easy. And Bush is still screwing it up. We're really nurturing democracy there. Leaving it to the warlords and poppy growers again.
Neoconservatives are all about theory... but no substance.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Scott, was there an imminent threat to the United States, to justify your position? And if so, can you spell out exactly what that threat to the United States was?
I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent?.
Sigh, wrong! He did?nt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD, or if he could deploy a nuclear bomb within the near term (a year or two) ? especially if he obtained fissionable materials. But the WMD argument advanced by his administration, and his supporters, was that given Saddam?s meglomanical and psychopathic history, his obstructive and suspicious coverups, and the the fearful uncertainity, it was ?URGENT? that the issue be delt with, preferably through long overdue regime change.
Now one may argue that, in retrospect, it was not urgent. However, one ought to at least acknowledge that the urgency was driven by 9/11, continually deferred American plans to deal with Saddam (dating back to the expulsion of UN inspectors several YEARS previously) AND the near impossibility of maintaining indefinitely the force levels necessary to extract compliance, or to force compliance through war before summer weather.
There is no reason, other than hysteria, for left critics to continue to invent history ? Bush may, or may not, have been wrong in his reasons for pressing war, but setting up a straw position to bash leaves the impression that his critics aren?t secure enough to confront his actual policy statements.
The question to Scott ought to have been: "What was so urgent to justify your position ?" (although even that is leading).
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent?.
Sigh, wrong! He did?nt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD, or if he could deploy a nuclear bomb within the near term (a year or two) ? especially if he obtained fissionable materials. But the WMD argument advanced by his administration, and his supporters, was that given Saddam?s meglomanical and psychopathic history, his obstructive and suspicious coverups, and the the fearful uncertainity, it was ?URGENT? that the issue be delt with, preferably through long overdue regime change.
Bush on October 7, 2002
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.
So the threat was not "imminent" but failure to act immediately conjures up the spectre of Hussein handing over his (nonexistant) bio and nuke weapons to terrorists just like the people who hit the World Trade Center "on a whim". Like, could be tommorrow.
And you seriously want to play a little semantics game where the use of the word "imminent" signals some kind leftist revisionist history.
I've said it before, you people have no shame.
Originally posted by sammi jo
...Perhaps you don't remember that this (and other) war(s) in the current series were mooted back in the 1990s by the PNAC group (Feith , Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol etc etc etc). In their mission statement, they said that these plans would be very slow to implement, unless there was some catastrophic event... a "New Pearl Harbor". (On the evening of 9-11, Bush wrote in his journal: "the new Pearl Harbor happened today)...the war was to go ahead regardless...hence all the absurd reasons for the war stated by the administration, which they danced around like some grotesque game of musical chairs (WMD, oil, links with al Qaeda, regime change, liberation of the Iraqi people, and so on). Wolfowitz himself stated that it was extremely hard to find consensus on any of these reasons and they eventually came to a compromise and settled on WMD because that was the easiest sell to the American people, who were still reeling from the shock of 9-11...they are spinning that "liberation of Iraq" nonsense...ie how very convenient, makes Bush look "charitable"... but that was never the reason for the war, and never could have been. Would the American people cough up $200 billion+ to bring freedom to the people of one middle eastern country? What a joke.
Your fevered speculations provides us with a sinister and breathless storyline: ?they (the PNAC group) said that these plans would be very slow to implement, unless there was some catastrophic event?a ?New Pearl Harbor? (On the evening of 9-11, Bush wrote in his journal: ?the new Pearl Harbor happended today?)? and ?Iraq never needed to be a threat: the war was to go ahead regardless?hence all the absurd reasons for the war?they danced the grotesque game?etc. etc.?
I think one ought to unravel your theatrical thread and provide a more dispassionate and balanced story.
The ?plans? of PNAC (a private, non-profit group started in 1997) was vetted in their policy document ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses? (2000). It laid out the key goals of its authors: to transform American military by making its combat forces lighter, more mobile, and technologically advanced; to redeploy and/or reorient forces from a potential ?European? conflict against the Soviet Union to other potential areas of trouble, particularly the far east; to halt the development of expensive force systems (e.g. the crusader artillery system) so as to fund the transformation; to better prepare the American military for growing constabulary missions (e.g. Kosovo); to maintain American military preeminence; and to defend and expand zones of democracy.
Of course, the authors recognized, as do most bold and imaginative government planners, that military culture and congressional politics are so powerful as to derail any radical break with previous doctrine and existing pork barrels ? and in fact, Rumsfeld?s attempts prior to 9-11 for force restructuring met with fierce, and successful resistence. But 9-11, a Pearl Harbor in most people?s view, recast a reticent (and almost isolationist) President and empowered his embattled Secretary, and propelled the neo-cons into the main currents of military/political debate.
Wolfowitz himself stated that it was extremely hard to find consensus on any of these reasons and they eventually came to a compromise and settled on WMD because that was the easiest sell to the American people, who were still reeling from the shock of 9-11. Now even the admin. has acknowledged that the WMD intel was fatally flawed, so they are spinning that "liberation of Iraq" nonsense...ie how very convenient
.
It wasn't so cynical. State and Defense participants had different degrees of consensus as too the need for a war to resolve their different concerns (WMD, liberation, terrorism) ? the one aspect all agreed on was the over-riding fear of Saddam?s WMD intentions and his program. While Powell and the State Department may have not justified the war in other terms initially, others in the administration (including Bush) made it very clear that there were other compelling reasons for the war: Saddam?s brutality and genocide, his support of terrorism, Saddam?s aspirations for an imperial empire, and the importance of oil. I would recommend you get a copy of ?The War for Iraq: Saddam?s Tyranny and America?s Mission? published before the war is an excellent summery of Bushs thinking and his administration?s rationale for the pending war.
Without 9-11, the Iraq war would have been a complete nonstarter. The American people would never have stood for it....and neither would the British, Spanish, or Italian governments...or any other of the "coalition of the willing" (paid off or threatened).
There we agree. 9-11 transformed the President and the public. It established a new doctrine of pre-emption, and it gave impulse to the neo-conservative (and neo-liberal) view of pro-active democratization.
The war happened, and as a result US interests could well be under a greater "imminent threat (from terrorists) than before the war.
Perhaps, or perhaps it merely expressed an inevitable (and pre-existing) clash of civilizations. It may well be that counter-attacking Muslims and dictators will create more terrorists and dictators, but the history of appeasement is that sooner, or later, one will not have a choice ? and the choice is best made earlier than later.
Jeez people. Here's how you do it.
Step 1: Imply that SH is cozy with al Qaeda
Step 1.5: Raise the terrah alert
Step 2: Back off of that and say that SH is cozy with "al Qaeda-like" terrorist organizations
Step 2.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 3: Start rattling sabres about SH and WMD
Step 3.5: Raise the terrah alert again
Step 3.75: Raise it again
Step 4: Hammer home that SH is a madman bent on acquiring WMD; imply that he has them or may be on the verge of having them. Or might be thinking about trying to have them. Or knows a guy who knows a guy who saw some once.
Step 4.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 4.75: Raise it, then lower it again.
Step 5: Remind everyone that the enemy hates America just because. Especially the liberals.
Step 6: Every time you mention the War on Terrah/Afghanistan/9.11, mention SH and his WMD in conjunction.
Step 7: Eventually stop talking about the War on Terrah/Afghanistan altogether; focus entirely on SH, his terrorist ties, and his WMD
In other words, sow confusion about the relationship between SH and 9/11 and terrorism, then convince people that SH had WMD. The people can draw the conclusion for themselves that CLEARLY SH and his WMD, like all terrorist attacks (see how we were constantly warned about possible attacks? At any moment? Be on alert!), is an *immanent threat*.
And therefore Iraq = Immanent threat.
You get the war you want without having to lie! It's all about what the meaning of "is" is....
Cheers
Scott
Saddam was not a threat. A bad man yes. They were saying he was a threat... if not imminent... incredibly dangerous. OOOO we don't know when he'll strike us with his big bad WMDs.
There are more terrorists in Iraq now than were there before the war.
The administration had so many excuses to go into Iraq.
WMD (we know where they are... roughly... we need more time, time we wouldn't give the UN inspectors)
Links to Al Qaeda (proven unlikely if not false Atta never met with an Iraqi spy)
Links to Ansar al Islam (actually they were in the Kurd controlled north near the Iranian border)
Seeking out nuclear capabilities (we're not sure how close they are to having weapons grade materials... now we know.)
They were coming up with every reason they could. Yes 9/11 happened... but it had nothing to do with Iraq... which was well contained. They had a THEORY, and they wanted to see it through... despite the lack of evidence, world support or any experience at nation building.
Originally posted by addabox
Bush on October 7, 2002
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.
So the threat was not "imminent" but failure to act immediately conjures up the spectre of Hussein handing over his (nonexistant) bio and nuke weapons to terrorists just like the people who hit the World Trade Center "on a whim". Like, could be tommorrow.
And you seriously want to play a little semantics game where the use of the word "imminent" signals some kind leftist revisionist history.
I've said it before, you people have no shame.
It is certainly no game, semantic or otherwise. Either Bush said the phrase attributed to him, or he did not. Either Bush, as concurrently claimed by the left, intentionally ?lied? about the immeniance of the threat, or he did not.
Unfortuntily, gaggles of liberal and leftist researchers have poured through the administration documents and media archieves to examine every utterence of George Bush hoping to find the ?smoking gun? ? to little avail.
What he did say was something quite different. At the United Nations he described the threat, not as imminent, but as ?grave and gathering? - an obvious reference to Winston Churchills warning several years prior to WWII of Nazi Germany?s rearming.
Bush 's followup State of the Union address made it very plain: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
Bush stated clearly that he did not wish to wait for Saddam to ?rearm?, or wait until the threat becomes "imminent" --- just how much plainer could he be ?
And, one should note, that it was certainly plain enough for numerous Democrats at the time, including Senators Kennedy and John Kerry. They were opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force precisely because it wasn't hinged to an imminent threat from Iraq (Kerry ultimately flip-flopped). Senator Robert Byrd even offered an amendment requiring that imminence become the standard for war. After a debate, he lost.
The trigger happy left has, of course, hoped to create a new mythology of imagined transgressions based on their own lexicon of coded meanings ? providing reassuring ?amens? to a frustrated liberal choir with revised history.
No, this issue is not one of semantic games; it is one of intellectual integrity and honesty. So in the search for shame, I suggest one starts at home.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
No, this issue is not one of semantic games; it is one of intellectual integrity and honesty.
Of which Bush showed none. You're delusional if you believe Bush didn't try to lead Congress and the public to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The ?plans? of PNAC (a private, non-profit group started in 1997) was vetted in their policy document ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses? (2000). It laid out the key goals of its authors: to transform American military by making its combat forces lighter, more mobile, and technologically advanced; to redeploy and/or reorient forces from a potential ?European? conflict against the Soviet Union to other potential areas of trouble, particularly the far east; to halt the development of expensive force systems (e.g. the crusader artillery system) so as to fund the transformation; to better prepare the American military for growing constabulary missions (e.g. Kosovo); to maintain American military preeminence; and to defend and expand zones of democracy.
Um, and the "plan" to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Specifically. As articulated in a letter to Clinton in 1998.
There we agree. 9-11 transformed the President and the public. It established a new doctrine of pre-emption, and it gave impulse to the neo-conservative (and neo-liberal) view of pro-active democratization
9/11 did not estabilish any doctrine. That was left to the oportunists in the white house.
Perhaps, or perhaps it merely expressed an inevitable (and pre-existing) clash of civilizations. It may well be that counter-attacking Muslims and dictators will create more terrorists and dictators, but the history of appeasement is that sooner, or later, one will not have a choice ? and the choice is best made earlier than later.
Counter-attacking Muslims? History of appeasment? Those phrases would only make sense if we were at war with a standing army of "Muslims" with a unique state.. Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.
The language of WWII is not only misleading in this context, it is tragically wrong-headed. This notion that these are the opening battles in a vast war between the (secular, liberal) west and the (backward, fanatical) east it just another chapter in "America needs a giant, fiendishly organized, implacibly evil enemy with No Regard For Human Life to keep the money flowing to the military and its contractors", the bed time story that has kept us awake nights now for over 50 years.
Originally posted by midwinter
Harumph.
Jeez people. Here's how you do it.
Step 1: Imply that SH is cozy with al Qaeda
Step 1.5: Raise the terrah alert
Step 2: Back off of that and say that SH is cozy with "al Qaeda-like" terrorist organizations
Step 2.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 3: Start rattling sabres about SH and WMD
Step 3.5: Raise the terrah alert again
Step 3.75: Raise it again
Step 4: Hammer home that SH is a madman bent on acquiring WMD; imply that he has them or may be on the verge of having them. Or might be thinking about trying to have them. Or knows a guy who knows a guy who saw some once.
Step 4.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 4.75: Raise it, then lower it again.
Step 5: Remind everyone that the enemy hates America just because. Especially the liberals.
Step 6: Every time you mention the War on Terrah/Afghanistan/9.11, mention SH and his WMD in conjunction.
Step 7: Eventually stop talking about the War on Terrah/Afghanistan altogether; focus entirely on SH, his terrorist ties, and his WMD
In other words, sow confusion about the relationship between SH and 9/11 and terrorism, then convince people that SH had WMD. The people can draw the conclusion for themselves that CLEARLY SH and his WMD, like all terrorist attacks (see how we were constantly warned about possible attacks? At any moment? Be on alert!), is an *immanent threat*.
And therefore Iraq = Immanent threat.
You get the war you want without having to lie! It's all about what the meaning of "is" is....
Cheers
Scott
The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. While the links between Al Queda and Iraq have been murky, it is untrue and misleading that there was a lack of evidence of such links. Iraq was strongly involved in the 1993 WTC bombing and subsequently protected several of the principals involved - at least one of which has close relatives in Al Queda leadership. Iraq?s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge. Before that, when Osama lived in Sudan, Iraq funneled funds to the radical Islamic regime in the Sudan and to their supporter Osama Bin Laden. It is believed that, in 1994, Iraq directly supplied Osama with funds to support the Islamic radicals in Algeria that were seeking to overthrow the government. More recently, after the World Trade Center destruction, an Al Queda senior terrorist, was hospitalized in Baghdad and treated for his wounds (and released)and then resided in Iraq. It is known that Al Queda and Iraq have participated in conference(s) of terror groups in Lebanon.
In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism. Iraq was one of the principals of the 93 WTC bombing. Iraq dispatched two agents to kill President Bush in Kuwait in the early 90s. Iraq has provided haven and home for five or six other terrorist groups including: the Abu Nidal organization, the MEK (Muslim), PFLP, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and the PKK (Kurdish). At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq. In other words, the electorate understands, that the essential truth is that in this war against the U.S. and its allies, one does not need to make such granular distinctions between two declared enemies and mutual supporters of terrorism ? anymore that one would have to make such distinctions regarding Japan and Germany.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Iraq?s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge.
I don't have time for all the skewing you've done here, but all we have to do is look at this one, which is considered prime evidence that no relationship could exist between the two groups as the idea was rejected flat-out by bin laden.
Oh, MEK has not used terrorism for decades and we all know that the pentagon supported it until the state department intervened. PFLP is not a threat to the US (well, none were). So good job at basically being dishonest.
I can't believe people like you are still at this. Have you even bothered to research Wohlstetter or read The City and Man? I didn't think so. I can give you a whole reading list on intel if you would like to get a clue.
For now, I'll just leave you with this:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/w...ar%20al-Islam.
Edit: I just can't pass this up
Originally posted by MaxParrish
At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq.
Apparently you really haven't been keeping up:
Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation ?was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,? and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?
Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.
From Hersh's Selective Intelligence
You act like this is all evidence of something. These are all tenuous and flimsy at best.
I say it's stretching.
There is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. NONE.
There were more links between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia to Al Qaeda than there ever were with Iraq.
Libya, Iran, Syria all have many more ties to terrorist groups than Iraq.
There were more terrorist cells in Italy, Spain and Germany than were in Iraq!
There a many more countries that are far more tolerant of terrorist groups than Iraq was.
Originally posted by addabox
Um, and the "plan" to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Specifically. As articulated in a letter to Clinton in 1998.
What of it (or the dozens of other plans concocted in the aftermath of the 91 Gulf war)?
Counter-attacking Muslims? History of appeasment? Those phrases would only make sense if we were at war with a standing army of "Muslims" with a unique state.. Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.
The language of WWII is not only misleading in this context, it is tragically wrong-headed. This notion that these are the opening battles in a vast war between the (secular, liberal) west and the (backward, fanatical) east it just another chapter in "America needs a giant, fiendishly organized, implacibly evil enemy with No Regard For Human Life to keep the money flowing to the military and its contractors", the bed time story that has kept us awake nights now for over 50 years.
Just a ?strategy? murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?
What Bin Laden and Bush know, that you don?t, is that we are at war, not with a strategy but with a cause and a culture. No, not a war against a single state or an entire culture, but against Islamic based global terrorism and those who would support or harbor it. To all but the densest, it is obvious that virtually all global terrorists are from Muslim countries - all of them march under a banner of Islamic religion and Muslim culture ? all of them believe in the Jihad, and perfidy of the West.
What many naive liberals ignore is that ?peaceful? Islam has grown increasingly intolerant and sectarian in the last century. Unlike an earlier era, Islam is now conformist and puritanical: taking the opposite path of Christianity, which has become far more diverse. Wahabbi?s, the most virulent and powerful strain of Islam, have banned hundreds of historical works by Islamic scholars of law, theology, etc. because they are ?heretical? and Wahabbi?s have the funding (from Saudi Arabia) to suppress the dwindling numbers ?moderates? who will not bend to their doctrines. Wahabbism now makes of 80% of U.S. Muslim clerics (is it any wonder when the U.S. military recruits ?moderates? it ends up with a spy cell and free lancing traitors?)
When the Arab streets erupt in joy at the death of Americans, when Pakistani tribes hide Bin Laden and his lieutenants, when Saudi Arabia funds fanatics and shields terrorists, when fanatics (who would otherwise be killing each other) flow into Iraq because a western nation is attacking a ?brother? Muslim ? then one would be a fool to dismiss ?terrorism? as simply a strategy.
War is upon us, Bush knows it, Bin Laden knows it, and the Arab street knows it. And the game is simple: Muslim terrorists will attack the west with impunity; and if we strike back, and the Islamic world and the Arab street will erupt.
So be it. In war against of terrorism and Islamic despotic regimes there may be an unavoidable clash of two civilizations. If so, let that be the choice of the Islamic world. Until then, our policy stands: support terrorism and you support your own destruction.
You all act as if you know what the pres knows, or what intel officials know. Who knows what they know and can't tell us. I think a lot of you that are trying to impute this pres may be eating crow when it all shakes out. The PRELIMINARY Kay report looks pretty damning and Kay seems pretty confident about finding the goods.
It seems the dems are screaming about the bad intel that the pres made the decision based on. But was it not them that decided that since the cold war was over there was no more need for human intelligence. I will look it up, but I have never heard this president blame the culprits for lack of intel.
Let's just forget WMD, UN sanctions, threats to other countries in the region and stuff like that. Let's look just inside Iraq. Just since 1991 it is estimated that over 200,000 Shiites have 'disappeared' or if you choose to believe the Iraqi people, have been killed by Saddam's thugs. BLA BLA BLA, you say?
Let's break it down:
That's over 18,000 people a year. Murdered. Over 1500 people a month. Murdered. More than 50 people a day. Murdered. More than 2 people per hour, 24 hours a day. Murdered.
Did I mention they were MURDERED. These people died in mass graves often buried alive. They were gunned down falling into trenches and bull dozed over the same day.
Back to putting the atrocity into perspective:
The tragedy would take more than 65 9/11's, more than 1190 Oklahoma Bombings, and more than 18,000 California Wildfire's to parallel the deaths that took place at the hands of the administration of Iraq, namely the SH regime.
What makes it worse, if you can immagine that, is the fact that most of these murders were committed soon after the 1991 Shiite uprising.
Go ask the Kurds in the north about how they were treated. How about the Kuwaiti's? The list goes on and on. The Iraqi's will be digging up mass graves for a decade.
These crimes on large chunks of humanity should have been enough to go in. Shame on us for not acting sooner.
These were reasons the pres gave to justify removing that evil. Why are you all ignoring these facts? It is a sad state of affairs when people care more about political 'brownie points" so they can say "I was right you were wrong" than they do for other humans.
My 2 pennies.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Bush 's followup State of the Union address made it very plain: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
This has been quoted twice now as evidence that he didn't say that Iraq was an "imminent threat".
Yet that is exactly what he is saying!
His first sentence clashes with the rest, he claims people want to wait until the threat is imminent, then argues against waiting until *after* an attack has occured, which implies an attack is imminent.
A classic "junior" tactic of combining sophistry with stupidity.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Just a ?strategy? murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?
Are you trying to get your own talk-show?
Lets see, addabox says:
Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.
you say:
Just a ?strategy? murdered 3000 people on September 11th?
So you think that a state or a religion murdered 3000 people? And that "strategy" plays no part in the deaths (or murders) of people in wars (or terrorist attacks)?
Are *you* serious?
It's no wonder you have trouble understanding the problems in the semantic wrangling discussed in this thread if this truly reflects your ability to use and understand language (or you could just be a blinkered partisan).
These people that base their world views on a series of falsehoods are funny.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Lot of unsupported pseudo facts flying around here.
Such as?
You all act as if you know what the pres knows, or what intel officials know.
That's because we do. It looks like you have some studying to do before you make a whole bunch of assumptions about how the world works. I can give you a reading list about intelligence if you would like to learn about it.
The PRELIMINARY Kay report looks pretty damning and Kay seems pretty confident about finding the goods.
Hey, look what this silly man said, everybody. He's goofy.
What makes it worse, if you can immagine that, is the fact that most of these murders were committed soon after the 1991 Shiite uprising.
Where do you people come from? What ever happened to learning about things before making such strong opinions?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
[B]What of it (or the dozens of other plans concocted in the aftermath of the 91 Gulf war)?
Just a ?strategy? murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?
Brzezinski put it well at the NASSP Conference:
"I think that calls for serious debate in America about the role of America in the world, and I do not believe that that serious debate is satisfied simply by a very abstract, vague and quasi-theological definition of the war on terrorism as the central preoccupation of the United States in today's world. That definition of the challenge in my view simply narrows down and over-simplifies a complex and varied set of challenges that needs to be addressed on a broad front.
It deals with abstractions. It theologizes the challenge. It doesn't point directly at the problem. It talks about a broad phenomenon, terrorism, as the enemy overlooking the fact that terrorism is a technique for killing people. That doesn't tell us who the enemy is. It's as if we said that World War II was not against the Nazis but against blitzkrieg. We need to ask who is the enemy, and the enemies are terrorists.
But not in an abstract, theologically-defined fashion, people, to quote again our highest spokesmen, "people who hate things, whereas we love things" ? literally. Not to mention the fact that of course terrorists hate freedom. I think they do hate. But believe me, I don't think they sit there abstractly hating freedom. They hate some of us. They hate some countries. They hate some particular targets. But it's a lot more concrete than these vague quasi-theological formulations."
http://www.centerforamericanprogress...1672CFC4A4C%7D
What many naive liberals ignore
It's crystal clear that you haven't studied this. You talk in abstractions and make false claims (such as the one about Salman Pak). So really, you aren't in any sort of position to point fingers.
then one would be a fool to dismiss ?terrorism? as simply a strategy.
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.